"The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is
infinite."

I'm sorry, but quoting Heisenberg to make a point is the argument from authority. Secondly, we have no way evidence that there is an infinite amount
of knowledge to be gained or that the majority of knowledge to be gained is worth having.

Sure, we might not know everything, but there is quite a bit of information in this universe that would not cover that which is applicable to
humanity.

Heisenberg did have a point that what we know is only a limited chunk, but it's not a limited chunk versus and unlimited body.

How "great a chunk of knowledge" is it compared to infinity?

Considering that infinity exists only in abstraction...

You may consider it a nonsene question,

...you've realized my answer. Yes, it is a nonsense question.

but I think it helps keep in perspective the extent of our scientific knowledge.

We can split apart or fuse together atomic nuclei to produce desired effects.

You know what, screw it, I'm just going to say that CERN is enough of a rebuttal to the idiocy that we don't know much about the universe that I'm
not going to bother doing anything but writing it in big letters:

CERN

Do we know everything? No. Do we know a lot? Hell yes!

Or is a billionaire not all that rich considering the trillions of dollars worth of currency currently circulating around the world?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The absolute arrogance being displayed in this thread is utterly astounding.

Yes, your arrogance is quite astounding.

We are being accused of astounding ignorance,

Because we are demonstrating how you are ignorant with quite a bit of help from you.

well then the level of ignorance we display on this topic from your perspective is equal to the level of arrogance you display on this topic from our
perspective, that is the reality for both sides.

I'm sorry, but there's nothing arrogant about pointing out how we're right and you're wrong. What is arrogant is that you keep insisting
that you're right without demonstrating it. Your entire argument rests on simply stating your position repeatedly and emphatically.

We have a few posters in the middle which I really do appreciate how they keep the dialogue going and fresh, but really we have two sides that are dug
in and entrenched like soldiers during World War 1. Some will just never budge no matter what.

I'll budge readily if someone provides me with evidence that I'm wrong. I do it quite often, though I must admit that I strive to be more open to
correction.

Organic evolution depends on a starting point, people keep saying no it doesn't, maybe in purely scientific terms you can separate them.

Evolution (because "organic evolution" would simply mean the evolution of carbon-based life...which is the only life that I'm aware of) depends on
there being any sort of starting point, it doesn't have to necessarily be abiogenesis.

How would a supernatural starting point preclude evolution?

And that's ok, the Cosmology issue comes before the Abiogenesis issue, and that needs to be answered too, but that is for a different thread.

And a supernatural origin of the cosmos would also not change the truth of evolution.

It comes down to two basic concepts in the end.
1) Those espousing the no matter in the universe all the way to two humans living on this earth had no help whatsoever from anything.

Well, we can see that energy and matter are interchangeable things, we've known this for a while. Hell, the equation for this is a username of
someone in this thread!

..and nobody in the biological community thinks that we had two humans living on this planet as the first example of it. This is displaying your
ignorance of genetics and evolutionary biology.

2)Those espousing an intelligence behind the energy conversion to matter in the universe all the way to two humans living on this earth.

And yet we could have your God (because frankly, you can't just call it intelligence because intelligence on its own has no means to act, stop being
dishonest) create the universe, personally convert some energy into matter, go through the whole cosmological process, and seed life on this Earth in
its modern forms including two humans living on Earth... ...and evolution would still be something that happens.

I'm sorry, but how would any of that second option preclude evolution from happening?

Of coarse there are many variation of beliefs, theories and hypothesis within those two concepts.

Well, the second one is not a theory nor does it contain any sort of theory. It doesn't even have a working hypothesis, it's simply a religious
belief.

And perhaps I should have used "disingenuous concept" verses "false Dichotomy" in the thread title

It would at least make sense as a thread title, but it would still be wrong.

However in my defense, I was using the word with this dictionary definition in view

division into two parts or classifications, esp when they are sharply distinguished or opposed:

Yes, but a false dichotomy is a version of the 'excluded middle' fallacy in which we are given two opposing view points without a second option.
Calling abiogenesis separated from evolution a false dichotomy would be saying that others are saying that it was either evolution or
abiogenesis and that the two are irreconcilable.

Common use dictionaries are no place to get scientific terms from. Now, if you can find this definition somewhere in the scientific literature, I'll
listen to it and this argument.

Also, thanks for admitting to your intellectual dishonesty.

I knew this thread was never about what you actually said in the title.

Of course, I don't know why we need this thread when I actually started a thread that has a lot of hits called
Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT! several months ago...and you didn't bother
proving ID there.

If you were learning the art of tailoring, would it be necessary for you to know the origin of the fabric you are using in order to
learn how garments are constructed from it?

Evolution is about the tailoring of life by natural phenonemon. Just as the art of tailoring is the same whether his fabric was tree bark, animal
skin, woven or matted fibres, fermented sheets of goo or was created by a divine entity, evolution is the same whether the beginnings of life on earth
spontaneously came into being from non-life, were accidentally seeded by a meteor, were "planted" by aliens, or were created by a divine entity.

Evolution is the process by which lifeforms have changed genetically.
One cannot reasonably argue that evolution does not happen, as it is easily observed.
The theory of evolution is the description of how these processes do, and have, worked.

Naturally, evolution cannot exist without a pre-existing lifeform, as it is about what happens to lifeforms. However the origin of the lifeform is of
no consequence to evolution; it's all the same whether life was created or just happened. Because the origin of the evolving life is
of no consequence to evolution, there is no intrinsic relationship between the theory of evolution and the theory of abiogenesis.

We know a fair amount.
We know how to split atoms, to produce electricity, to send space craft on a planned mission outside of the solar system.
We can gauge and extrapolate rates of radioactive decay in elements.

We understand the relationship of gravity to time, and some idea of how the universe came into being.

These are very real, very solid discoveries. Some, like Newton's Laws, have survived mostly unchanged, with fine tuning added in by people like
Einstein.

We know a fair amount.
We know how to split atoms, to produce electricity, to send space craft on a planned mission outside of the solar system.
We can gauge and extrapolate rates of radioactive decay in elements.

No doubt that the advances of science are very impressive, I have no argument on that account.

However, what I am trying to suggest is that while scientific theories may be very useful in helping us understand how things work in the material
world, they are necessarily confined to that aspect of reality which can be accessed through our senses.

Scientific theories, such as abiogenesis and evolution, only pertain to the limited part of material reality which is exposed to the scientific method
of questioning.

Ironically, any claim that science is the only valid method of obtaining knowledge of reality lies outside the very bounds of the the scientific
method.

Ironically, any claim that science is the only valid method of obtaining knowledge of reality lies outside the very bounds of the the scientific
method.

Not ironic at all, its called the scientific method, not the philosophical method or the idealistic method, or the religious method.
Science is a field devoted to obtaining knowledge through observation, and following a set of guidelines for discovery to maintain integrity,
objectivity, and a sense of reality.

Yes, CERN is a magnificent achievement of science, but in the final analysis it can only reveal what is knoweable of the material aspect of reality
using the scientific method of observation.

There is no infinite except in abstractions we can create. Thus, there is no infinite body of knowledge.

If infinite is understood as something without limitations, then I do belive that an infinite body of knowledge exists. But perhaps that is food for
another topic.

'm saying we know a great deal about things that apply to the portion of space we occupy on the scale we occupy it.

That is a more precise way of putting it, and I would not disagree if you further refine the "space" as physical reality, and "scale we occupy it" as
our perception of our sensory participation in this material universe.

Or is a billionaire still not a rich guy because he doesn't have most of the world's money?

No, but if his money is compared to all the money in the world, it is very insignificant, is it not?

Originally posted by mysticnoon
Yes, CERN is a magnificent achievement of science, but in the final analysis it can only reveal what is knoweable of the material aspect of reality
using the scientific method of observation.

I'm sorry, but there is no evidence of anything beyond the material world. There is no 'aspect of reality' here, all the reality that has any basis
in fact is material.

There is no infinite except in abstractions we can create. Thus, there is no infinite body of knowledge.

If infinite is understood as something without limitations, then I do belive that an infinite body of knowledge exists. But perhaps that is food for
another topic.

The infinite is understood as something that is unending. Infinite anything would be something that is logically impossible.

That is a more precise way of putting it, and I would not disagree if you further refine the "space" as physical reality,

Reality. There is no 'physical' about it because it's an unnecessary qualifier unless you can pinpoint the existence of any other reality.

and "scale we occupy it" as our perception of our sensory participation in this material universe.

Sensory participation? I'm sorry, but that's not something that makes any sense at all.

Or is a billionaire still not a rich guy because he doesn't have most of the world's money?

No, but if his money is compared to all the money in the world, it is very insignificant, is it not?

Insignificant? I'm sorry, but the equivalent of the lifetime income of 278 individuals with a doctorate is still not insignificant.

You can have a significant amount of something without having even a notable percentage of the total amount of it in existence when there's so damn
much of it.

As for Madness
I acknowledge your posts, however due to numerous past encounters on ATS, I choose not address your posts and pursue an exercise in utter futility
that always end in a arrogant, "you are wrong" from you.

When you tone down the "you are wrong" rhetoric then and only then will I re-engage.

The infinite is understood as something that is unending. Infinite anything would be something that is logically impossible.

It may be a logic impossibility, agreed, but I think this only reflects the limitations of the mind's ability to conceive of something without end.

There is no 'physical' about it because it's an unnecessary qualifier unless you can pinpoint the existence of any other reality.

It is a necessary qualifier if we are considering the materialistic assumptions about the nature of reality.

Sensory participation? I'm sorry, but that's not something that makes any sense at all.

I admit that is a clumsy phrase. I do struggle with clarity in expression, which is one reason why I resort to quoting from authority.

You can have a significant amount of something without having even a notable percentage of the total amount of it in existence when there's so damn
much of it.

Look, I am not trying to diminish the significant amount of scientific knowledge available today, I think I have said on more than one occasion that
it is very impressive.

Rather, it is more along the lines of trying to say that if you think scientific knowledge is so very vast, your mind would be truly blown away if you
glimpsed even an iota of the knowledge which may be revealed to you through alternate avenues of investigation.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.